Talk:The Guardian's Maul
I don't think this page is necessary. The only difference between this and a regular heavy maul is that it comes with +3 electricity damage. It seems to not have a rune slot because of that, though. I checked the toolset, it even has the same item ID as any normal heavy maul in the game. Also, the name of this page is not taken from the game or any source, but rather was arbitrarily named by the creator of the page.--Phishrir (talk) 05:31, July 16, 2013 (UTC) : I agree with Phishrir. Although the bug is worthy of mention, I reckon it would be best written down on the Guardian's page itself, including the bug and if necessary, the pictures themselves. The weapon has no specific name and is not incredibely unique even though its acquisition is. Considering all things said above, I'd like to nominate The Guardian's Maul's page for merging with the Guardian's page, keeping all that is necessary to mention. --Margerard (talk) 20:48, July 16, 2013 (UTC) I would certainly agree at needs a 2nd look at but im not sure the page should be totally removed/merged...if you look here: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Vigilance_(Dragon_Age_II) you can see that we have an item that is not obtainable by ordinary means but still has it's own page. Unlike Vigilance however the guardian's maul -im assuming- cannot be obtained via the console due to sharing the same ID as an ordinary maul, but there is still an alternative method of acquisition. For the sake of accounting for every item in dao it may be worth keeping it but revising the page but at the same time this won't be a valuable resource to many people and so long as it is mentioned elsewhere it probably won't be missed. Im going to marginally edge towards phis though on the base that it may not be worth overhauling a page for a useless item that is categorised by the toolset as an ordinary maul by the item code. A suggestion may be to also mention it under the maul/heavy maul page as a possible bug item.--The W!Z3MAN Hath Spoken! Obey! (talk) 00:09, July 17, 2013 (UTC) If I wanted this on the Guardian's page I would have put it there in the first place. It should stay as its own page. However, I will edit the page so that the bug is only linked on this page and the bug info itself will be elsewhere. I don't have time to upload the bug info right now, so you'll have to wait for the proper link to appear on this page. Believe it! (talk) 17:01, July 17, 2013 (UTC) Perhaps if you gave some form of an argument as to why it should remain. Others, as well as myself, have given reason as to why it should go/be merged. Otherwise, this page should be called "Heavy Maul that is only slightly different than any other Heavy Maul in the game, oh and the Guardian uses it, too".--Phishrir (talk) 21:41, July 17, 2013 (UTC) I would agree with merging it into the Guardian's page if the weapon does not have an in game unique name. Possibly with a mention on the Heavy Maul page about the Guardian dropping a unique version-HD3 (talk) 05:53, July 18, 2013 (UTC) I agree with the merge. The information here can easily be summarized in both The Guardian and Heavy Maul. As a reader, I would have been happier if information about this variant was located on a page with more information. However, I do think that this page should redirect to one of those pages. -- 06:12, July 18, 2013 (UTC) All the reasons posted in favor of merging stink! The Guardian's maul is a heavy maul with a unique property that no other maul has. The fact its basis is a heavy maul doesn't mean it should be merged with anything else. Don't forget that it has a unique look as well. A picture is needed to show the item's appearance. It isn't as if this page shows some random item drop that you can get anywhere else in the game. It's different and it's obtained in an unconventional way. It's like Duncan's Sword. Should we say that since it looks like a Warden's Long Sword it should be put under that item's page and then have a note referencing the differences? Nay saith I. Believe it! (talk) 15:25, July 18, 2013 (UTC) 1. "All the reasons posted in favor of merging stink!" Do I even need to address this? 2. "The fact its basis is a heavy maul doesn't mean it should be merged with anything else." Uh yeah, it means it should be merged with heavy maul. 3. "Don't forget that it has a unique look as well." Unique look? From the screenshot *you* posted, it looks EXACTLY like the regular Heavy Maul...except electricity from the +electricity damage. 4. "It's like Duncan's Sword. Should we say that since it looks like a Warden's Long Sword it should be put under that item's page and then have a note referencing the differences?" But then again, Duncan's Sword and Warden's Longsword *are* in the game, and called as such. I could scour a million unmodded save games' inventories and never see a weapon called "The Guardian's Maul". To wrap it up, everyone that's posted here besides you agree that this page is not needed as it stands now, including an admin.--Phishrir (talk) 18:18, July 18, 2013 (UTC) 1. No. 2. Okay then, let's go merge Trian's Maul in with the other mauls. Because, ya know, to have its own page doesn't serve a purpose. 3. So you admit it has a unique look from the other heavy mauls. Thanks for agreeing with me. 4. The Guardian's maul is in the game too. If the name is all you're hung up on then you agree it is a different item and now we are just negotiating the title. I would be willing to rename it The Guardian's heavy maul. That identifies what it is without giving a name to it other than "heavy maul". Also, the pages will not be merged because this heavy maul is NOT the same as the common heavy maul. W!Z agreed with me, and besides, the wiki is not a democracy. Info is not determined by popular vote. Also, Appeal to Authority fallacy on your part. Anyway, I think my most recent suggestion is the best option and satisfies everyone's concerns. Believe it! (talk) 20:23, July 18, 2013 (UTC) So, if you're right, go create a page for Vigilance with a Starfang appearance, then. While you're at it, we could use pages for every higher tier weapon that lacks rune slots because of bugs. Starfang Vigilance and Zero Rune Maric's Sword look different and have different properties than the original Starfang or Maric's Sword, yet we don't have serparate pages for them. This isn't your own personal Wiki, so you should create pages that adhere to how we do things. Don't like it, change the policy.--Phishrir (talk) 20:51, July 18, 2013 (UTC) :You're comparing apples to oranges. A bugged item is not the same as a different item with different properties. I made concessions twice to resolve this issue but you have made none. It's clear who is in the right on this. I am leaving the name as is and adding more to it. If you don't like the page then don't go to it. Believe it! (talk) 21:43, July 18, 2013 (UTC) I ultimately decided it should be merged with the heavy maul and gaurdian pages. I was more diplomatic at the time because I didn't read that it didn't even have it's own name. i think the popular course of action here is the best one. Just clarifying.--The W!Z3MAN Hath Spoken! Obey! (talk) 21:18, July 18, 2013 (UTC) "And besides, the wiki is not a democracy." Wow. Also, it's not a question if your informations are legit or not, the question is if this page is necessary? According to popular belief on this talk page, it's not. --Margerard (talk) 21:20, July 18, 2013 (UTC) :If they don't find it necessary then they can choose not to read it. People can't just go around eliminating pages they think are unnecessary. Show me the rule saying this must be merged and I'll agree. Until then it's a unique item and deserves its own page. Also, what does anyone else care anyway? Is there a limit to how many pages a wiki can have? Is this item taking up valuable Internets? Believe it! (talk) 21:43, July 18, 2013 (UTC) :: "I made concessions twice to resolve this issue but you have made none." Sure I have. I originally wanted the whole page deleted. But I'll be fine if it's merged with the 2 pages mentioned already. :: "Also, what does anyone else care anyway? Is there a limit to how many pages a wiki can have?" You seem to not know what a wiki is or how it operates. It's for the public, not just you. And just because you created the page does not give you final say on it.--Phishrir (talk) 22:08, July 18, 2013 (UTC) Sign your posts! Or is that not how you guys do things around here? LOL! So you wanted a valuable find to be deleted completely. That says it all right there. You're jealous that I have the skills to find epic exploits and you don't. If it's for the public then let the public have it. But oh noez, you want it deleted because this isn't MY personal wiki, it's YOUR personal wiki. Hypocrite! Believe it! (talk) 21:59, July 18, 2013 (UTC) Believe, please refrain from removing the merger tag until after the discussion is finished, as it is both juvenile and shows complete disregard for fellow wiki members. --''--Isolationistmagi'' 21:55, July 18, 2013 (UTC) After reading through most of this talk page, I would go so far as to offer my opinion that a merger should be done. It seems like a reasonable compromise. EzzyD (talk) 21:56, July 18, 2013 (UTC) :It IS finished. Phish is just a rabble-rouser. Believe it! (talk) 21:59, July 18, 2013 (UTC) :: Might I ask since when do you decide what is finished and what isn't? --Margerard (talk) 22:08, July 18, 2013 (UTC) ::: Since I proved Phish wrong. I win the discussion with facts and evidence. So unless you have that rule I asked about, then it is finished. Believe it! (talk) 22:18, July 18, 2013 (UTC) ::Generally speaking, we leave a tag up for at least a week (unless something changed since I was gone). It can go beyond that if there is no consensus. That being said, please keep the discussion about the article rather than about editors to keep this civil, thank you. ::As for the relevancy of the page itself, I think it should be in the bug or notes section of the Guardian as others have stated. The lack of item id makes it seem that it's a generic version of the Heavy Maul, not an unique item itself. The weapon is not like the Vigilance sword from DAII. We have a guideline regarding unobtainable items and cut content, and the Vigilance falls within the cut content (it is believed to be cut content mainly due to the codex entry and its unique item id). We do include unobtainable items, but not all of them are included. 22:23, July 18, 2013 (UTC) I believe a large portion of this discussion is useful for further discussion but this should take place in the Manual of Style talk page instead as there is already a standing ruleset on cut content and unobtainable items. See here. Based on this ruling, I think it's clear that this page should be deleted. 02:15, July 19, 2013 (UTC) So since this special version heavy maul was designed just for the Guardian, and isn't obtainable anywhere else through regular means, that makes it an NPC item. According to that rule, a new page can not be made for it. So in light of that I agree that the page should be deleted. The maul can be referenced on the Guardian's page, and perhaps the heavy maul page as well. The bug used to get it can also link to that part of the Guardian page. I'll add the bug info to the relevant page when I have time. Believe it! (talk) 15:27, July 19, 2013 (UTC) @User:Believe it!, as D-day has pointed out, we strive for consensus if possible. But in the absence of that, we try to do what makes the most sense from the community's perspective and there are many cited examples here of why this article is not like Vigilance or Trian's Maul. However, I do feel that this article is best redirected and the content merged rather than outright deleted. -- 21:35, July 19, 2013 (UTC) :I have asked for User:-Sophia to check if this maul exists in the game files as she checked the Guardian in the toolset and surprisingly found him carrying a Heavy Maul instead of this maul. Which means that this maul may even be part of a third party mod. 22:21, July 19, 2013 (UTC) Guys, you might also be interested in checking out this discussion before a final decision is made. 14:57, July 25, 2013 (UTC)